Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Process of knowledge acquisition
An essay about knowledge
An essay about knowledge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Process of knowledge acquisition
On the subject of knowledge and reality, we face many philosophers and their opinions on how one acquires knowledge. In my essay I will focus on the issue between skeptics and dogmatists. I will first explain what dogmatism about perceptual justification and knowledge is, followed by how the dogmatist responds to the problem of skepticism, and why the response to skepticism is not plausible.
What is dogmatism about perceptual justification and knowledge? I will begin by breaking down this sentence and defining its core words. “Dogmatism,” according to Dr. David Seaman, is the ideology of “unfounded positive-ness in matters of opinion and the arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.” In other words, dogmatism is a unseeing trust that comes from reasoning. A dogmatist is more likely to support the philosophy of a relativist. Relativists believe in a criterion of judgment that varies with individuals and the environment they are in. Next we’ll define “perceptual justification.” Perceptual justification, one of James Pryor’s main interests, is a justification rooted from conscious perceptual experiences. Many philosophers, such as Alvin Goldman, object to this type of justification claiming that perceptual experiences are not always reliable for one to know something. Alternatively, he focuses on the mechanisms responsible for one’s perceptual experiences. The reasoning entailed in perceptual justification can be broken down further to propositional justification and doxastic justification, which includes propositional justification. Propositional justification can be defined when a Subject “S” possesses propositional justification for the belief that some proposition “P” if and only if they have good reason to believe that proposi...
... middle of paper ...
...ate first encounter justification. This justification is what leads dogmatists to perceptual knowledge. Skeptics challenge this perceptual knowledge that dogmatist claim to gain by questioning their beliefs. We notice how James Pryor attempts to respond to these skeptics through his use of the modest anti-skeptical project. Although the point of this project was to come to know things without having to contradict obvious facts given about perception, the project failed because it only established satisfaction for the dogmatist. Dogmatists also argued the grounds of independent justification in regards to skepticism but what they did not realize is that independent justification is much needed to attain belief in other aspects of premises. Henceforth, the dogmatist response against skepticism is not plausible because it cannot prove the skeptic’s theory inaccurate.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
Skepticism is the view that there is no way to prove that objects exist outside of us. Skeptics hold that we can not distinguish between dreams and reality, and therefore what we take to be true can very well be creations of our minds while we are nothing more than a simple piece of matter, such as a brain sitting in a vat that is connected to a machine that simulates a perfect representation of reality for the “brain” to live in.1 In the excerpt “Proof of an External World” from his essay of the same name, G.E. Moore responds to the skeptic’s argument by attempting to prove the existence of external objects. There are four parts to this paper. Firstly, I will explain Moore’s overall argumentative strategy and how he considers his proof to be rigorous and legitimate. Then, I will present Moore’s proof of the existence of an external world. Thirdly, I will discuss the responses that skeptics may have to Moore’s argument and how Moore defends his proof against the these responses. Finally, I will give my opinion on how efficiently Moore defends his claims against the skeptics’ responses.
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
Dr. Gregory Boyd is a professor of theology at Bethel College. He attended such universities as the University of Minnesota, Yale Divinity School, and Princeton Theological Seminary. As well as being a professor he is a preaching pastor at Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, and has authored three books and several articles. This particular book is a dialogue between he and his father, Edward Boyd. Edward lives in Florida and worked for 35 years in sales management. He has six kids, 15 grandchildren, and nine great-grandchildren.
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
The process of demolition is reduced to the single task by the principle that knowledge is doubtable if what the knowledge is contingent upon is uncertain. Following the belief contained in the Aristotelian dictum that ‘nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses’, proving the uncertainty of knowledge gained from the senses is all that is necessary to prove that all the knowledge the meditator has about the world is uncertain. Tentatively beginning with cases in which he believes that he is misguided, such as optical illusions, he next resorts to more drastic measures, which he calls ‘hyperbolic doubt’. He imagines scenarios that would result in him being sensorially deceived such as hypothesizing that he...
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made. In this three-sided debate, Hume’s depiction of an empiricist is clearly the winner.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
“Properly open mind is just the most enjoyable way to live” Ronald Geiger said in his article about skepticism. Skepticism is one of the first steps on the road to open, creative and critical thinking that young people should take in their lives. It is important for the people in adolescence period, like high school students, to learn how to think properly and be critical toward some of the aspects in society. The course in skepticism in high school will allow students to have positive effects on their intellectual level, ethical standings, physical conditions and psychological status. Skepticism should be included in high school curricular and be one of the requirements for graduation because of its tremendous amount beneficial factors in
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
Frank Jackson (1986) was one of the many philosophers that sort to explain the knowledge that surrounds understanding the world’s environment, human beings themselves and the interactions that occur between the two. In response to physicalism, the view that a physical theory of nature can fully describe mental activity and consequently, the world in its entirety is physical (Lycan, 1998), Jackson proposed the Knowledge Argument (Jackson, 1986). This argument aimed to establish the notion that conscious experience encompasses more than physical properties alone. Jackson thus, established the idea that a person who holds complete physical knowledge can know everything explained explicitly in physical language and hence, is susceptible to a lack
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the
Perception is defined as the awareness of the world through the use of the five senses, but the concept of perception is often used to isolate one person’s point of view, so how reliable can perception be if no one person’s is exactly the same? The word perception itself is riddled with different, well, perceptions of its meaning. When some hear the word, they might automatically think of it as something innately flawed, that can easily be fooled by illusions, while others may think of its usefulness when avoiding scalding a hand on a hot stove. I am here to agree with both and to argue that perception is something necessary and helpful, and something that should be scrutinized for its flaws. By looking at perception as a way of knowing in the context of memory and human sciences, it can be concluded that perception can contribute to the acquisition of knowledge by constructing a foundation on which incoming stimuli from the environment are able to be quickly interpreted and acted upon, but perception can also hinder the acquisition of knowledge by wrongly interpreting those stimuli, causing inappropriate reactions.